Software patents are the problem not the answer
unionsquareventures.com
Software patents are the problem not the answer
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#2Minor quibble: patent prosecution is the process of getting a patent from the PTO. Patent enforcement is suing a startup for infringement.
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#3I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers?
For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which previously required an entire factory of employees perhaps, and right now, I could patent that. Without software patents I couldn't.
However, if I invent a big machine, that does the same thing my software did, and I build it with gears and levers and conveyor belts, I could patent that. No one argues that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a physical device or the design for a physical device.
But people argue that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a software device that does exactly the same thing as the hardware device.
Why the bias toward the physical? Why don't abstract inventions carry the same worthiness of intellectual protection that physical devices afford?
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#4Agreed. Software patents hinder innovation. Large companies can afford to create and license patents; startups launch products/web services and hope not to trip any of those "landmines" when they become successful.
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#5I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which pr…
"For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent."
NO!
Outside of the lower end of the embedded realm, computer systems are fantastically more complicated than anything physical we've every tried to construct, and they contain so many ideas that could be subject to patent in the current regime that you analogy fails.
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#6I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which pr…
" For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. " NO! Outside of the lower end of the embedded realm, computer systems are fantastically more complicated than anything physical we've every tried to construct, and they contain so many ideas that could be subject to patent in the current regime that you analogy fails.
So this adds even more to the argument that software should retain its patentability. If it's even more complex than the old stuff we thought was so complex it deserved special protection.
> NO!
It's hard to believe, but it is true. Imagine simply replacing tiny transistors on a chip with big relays and physical switches that flop back and forth. Yes, it would take a long time and be a very big device, but it's a mathematically proven fact.
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
" For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. " NO! Outside of the lower end of the embedded realm, computer systems are fantastically more complicated than anything physical we've every tried to construct, and they contain so many ideas that could be subject to patent in the current regime that you analogy fails.
So this adds even more to the argument that software should retain its patentability. If it's even more complex than the old stuff we thought was so complex it deserved special protection. > NO! It's hard to believe, but it is true. Imagine simply replacing tiny transistors on a chip with big relays and physical switches that flop back and forth. Yes, it would take a long time and be a very big device, but it's a mat…
No, the point here is that no one can build a software system of any complexity without infringing on many patents. Tracking that and even paying RAND fees without the need for negotiation makes this impossible, not just difficult or impractical.
And it kills open source software, which doesn't have a model to pay license fees.
Plus there are so many not formally documented ideas that the Patent Office regularly issues patents covering well known prior art; surely you've heard of this? E.g. the XOR patent?
With any luck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski will drive a stake into the heart of this madness.
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#8I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which pr…
The common complaints about software patents rely on mistakes and shortcomings of the book-keeping: obvious inventions sneaking through, prior art missed, terms too long, etc.
But the real difference (and problem, imo) can be found in the claims.
A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, precisely how an invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there.
Infringement on that patent can only happen if a competing implementation contains all the elements of the original claims.
So if I want to achieve the same result that you did, I simply have to build my solution such that at least one element is distinct.
E.g. If you were granted a patent on a traditional set of gears to effect variable windscreen wiper delay, I could use an orbital gearing solution. Regardless of which solution is better, at the end of the day we'd both be able to offer our clients variable wiper delay.
Software (and process) claims, by contrast, invariably work at a higher level. Gone are levers and gears, in their place we find 'a method', 'a network', 'a client'. As we all know "a network" describes a far, far larger domain than "a gear" (and even "a gear" is pretty darn generous).
Software patents are literally staking their claims at a higher level of abstraction and the practical result is that there is generally no feasible alternative implementation. So no competitor can offer a competing product that effects the same result, even if the substance of their solution is wildly different than the original invention.
Rather than granting a monopoly on the invention, software patents live far closer to the level of granting a monopoly on the idea. And this introduces a much more severe drag on the market than you see with physical inventions.
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this adds even more to the argument that software should retain its patentability. If it's even more complex than the old stuff we thought was so complex it deserved special protection. > NO! It's hard to believe, but it is true. Imagine simply replacing tiny transistors on a chip with big relays and physical switches that flop back and forth. Yes, it would take a long time and be a very big device, but it's a mat…
No, the point here is that no one can build a software system of any complexity without infringing on many patents. Tracking that and even paying RAND fees without the need for negotiation makes this impossible , not just difficult or impractical. And it kills open source software, which doesn't have a model to pay license fees. Plus there are so many not formally documented ideas that the Patent Office regularly iss…
The legal system, unfortunately, is where patents are disputed. If there is prior art, the patent will be thrown out.
Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer
#10I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which pr…
[deleted]